ORDER 1. Two questions arise for our consideration in this appeal (1) whether any relationship of master and servant exists between the parties; and (2) whether the workman on reinstatement, is entitled to any particular pay scale and other benefits awarded by the Tribunal. 2. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (4), U.P., Agra after going through the material on record came to the conclusion that the respondent workman was appointed by the then Executive Engineer as chowkidar in the Store Department. He considered the evidence led by the workman vis-a-vis that of the management and came to that conclusion, which finding has been confirmed by the High Court and we find no reason to interfere with the said question. Consequently, the respondent workman is entitled to reinstatement in the same post as he was working on the date of his termination. 3. However, the Industrial Tribunal in the operative portion of the order, while directing the reinstatement, held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and all service benefits from 16-12-1989 as if he was in continuous service. It further directed that he be paid full emoluments in the pay scale of Rs. 900-1190 from 1-4-1989 to 16-12-1989 and he should be paid full pay admissible to him as chowkidar in the scale of Rs 900 to 1190 with all admissible allowances and from the date of completion of three years of service he had to be given all increments due to him and be appointed on a regular basis. 4. We cannot accept the above directions given by the Industrial Tribunal in regard to the scale of pay to be drawn and regularisation and the benefits directed by the said Tribunal. 5. It is the case of the workman himself that his appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and he was being paid consolidated salary of Rs 600 per month. It is while so serving as an ad hoc employee, his services were terminated without following the requirement of law under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 5. It is the case of the workman himself that his appointment was purely on ad hoc basis and he was being paid consolidated salary of Rs 600 per month. It is while so serving as an ad hoc employee, his services were terminated without following the requirement of law under Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. If that be the case, then on being found that the ad hoc employee is entitled to reinstatement in the same post on the same pay scale as was being drawn by him on the date of his termination other questions like the management putting him on a particular pay scale and further regularisation of his services will not arise. By doing this the Industrial Tribunal has gone beyond the scope of the dispute. 6. The High Court, however, has reduced the back wages payable for the period during which the workman was not in service to 50% as against the 100% back wages granted by the Tribunal. We are in agreement with the High Court so far as the quantum of back wages to be paid to the workman, which shall be 50% of the back wages drawn by him on the date of his termination. We set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal in regard to the" fixation of pay scale and regularisation of service since that was beyond the scope of dispute before it. 7. Consequently, while upholding the order of reinstatement of the workman concerned and the entitlement of scale as drawn on the date of his retrenchment, we set aside the order directing the fixation of pay scale and regularisation of his service as done by the Tribunal. However, if the respondent workman is entitled to any other benefit in law he may approach the appropriate authority if so advised. 8. With the above modification, this appeal is partly allowed.